Understanding the end rhyme and the division is important because it helps the reader figure out the meaning of the poem. *

true
false

- "a nonrestrictive clause functions as a modifier to a noun (that is an object, person or concept). these clauses can be described by the following three options: it is set off by comas, it contains a subject and a verbs and it adds nonessential information to the sentence.

for example, in "here is bill gates, who confounded microsoft software company" we can identify "who confounded microsoft software company" as a nonrestrictive clause modifying the noun bill gates. this clause can be describes as a nonrestrictive clause because it is separated by a comma, it adds nonessential information to identify who bill gates is and it must contain both a subject (who) and a verb (confounded)."

i think the answer is invented words, rhyming knack, alliteration, and, metaphor.

yes as the core issue is an ever increasing majority of human workers   will become permanently unemployed as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines inevitably replace more expensive human workers with each passing year.

economic growth now and in the future requires that fewer jobs are created for human workers. this is the desirable inevitable consequence. the automation of the jobs of human workers is the most profitable economically productive activity on the planet.

so as a global society we need to have a plan to deal with this inevitable change.

automation has been, is and will always be a friend to human society if human society on a global basis is prepared to deal with the inevitable consequences.

what is key is that automation killing all jobs is only a matter of when not if.

the real question is can we get past the now invalid assumption that most humans can work for a decent wage going forward.

i spent my working career increasing automation and increasing efficiency. this consequently reduces the hours worked by humans while increasing the output economic goods and services at an ever decreasing price.

why not have ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines create the vast majority of required economic goods and services as opposed to human workers?

why not have most human workers working less and retiring earlier?

there is much more to life than working forever.

fortunately, automation has been going on for decades and will continue as an irreversible process as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines permanently replace more costly human workers.

i write this answer for the people that have an open mind and are not living in the past this is what i feel most effectively deals with the tractable issues that automation creates.

the question at hand is how we deal with automation going forward as a society.

automation is only a threat because society has yet to acknowledge automation is happening let alone effectively a having a plan to address it.

a conservative libertarian free market idea where individuals choose what economic goods and services are produced in the free market as the free market supply will respond to free market demand. this is not a centrally planned communist economy.

it is yes as the core issue is an ever increasing majority of human workers   will become permanently unemployed as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines inevitably replace more expensive human workers with each passing year.

economic growth now and in the future requires that fewer jobs are created for human workers. this is the desirable inevitable consequence. the automation of the jobs of human workers is the most profitable economically productive activity on the planet.

so as a global society we need to have a plan to deal with this inevitable change.

automation has been, is and will always be a friend to human society if human society on a global basis is prepared to deal with the inevitable consequences.

what is key is that automation killing all jobs is only a matter of when not if.

the real question is can we get past the now invalid assumption that most humans can work for a decent wage going forward.

i spent my working career increasing automation and increasing efficiency. this consequently reduces the hours worked by humans while increasing the output economic goods and services at an ever decreasing price.

why not have ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines create the vast majority of required economic goods and services as opposed to human workers?

why not have most human workers working less and retiring earlier?

there is much more to life than working forever.

fortunately, automation has been going on for decades and will continue as an irreversible process as ever cheaper ever more intelligent automated machines permanently replace more costly human workers.

i write this answer for the people that have an open mind and are not living in the past this is what i feel most effectively deals with the tractable issues that automation creates.

the question at hand is how we deal with automation going forward as a society.

automation is only a threat because society has yet to acknowledge automation is happening let alone effectively a having a plan to address it.

a conservative libertarian free market idea where individuals choose what economic goods and services are produced in the free market as the free market supply will respond to free market demand. this is not a centrally planned communist economy.

hope this

the correct answer is option d. none of these. it is noted that options a, b, and c share the same content.

despite the valid answer provided at the last sentence of each of the options, a question/answer format shouldn't include humourous themed responses such as "you bet your thermal pj's we do." - unless of course, the answer is carried out in an informal environment. this could be replaced with a simple "yes" or "it is necessary".

the question should be re-phrased to a more appropiate syntaxis. instead of "do we need the greenhouse effect? ", it should be written as "is the greenhouse effect necessary? " in order to give it a general scope, instead of limiting the answer to the needs of "we" the humans.